Apparently if one has access to the secret decoder ring, one can determine which members in good standing of the very serious foreign policy community are experts and which ones are merely "experts." If only those rings were, say, distributed with my Washington Post. Maybe Wolf Blitzer could be given some hand signals he could use while he interviews people.
Or, maybe, if people really want there to be a "clerisy" of very serious people we're supposed to respect - a concept I reject, but at least it could be improved upon - they could stop handing out CFR and Brookings fellowships to every hack in Washington who needs a title and start having some quality control. Maybe occasionally ejecting a few for having some really catastrophically bad ideas?
And I don't have time to unpack the transcript right now (no link, just nexis), but if you have the stomach you can gaze on the horror for an entire hour with Charlie Rose from this past week.
Friedman's someone who advocated killing random innocent people to prove we could. Leaving aside the, uh, rather dubious morality of this and the fact that of such things war crimes tribunals are made, since we're supposed to take as given that he's a good and sincere person, let me make a separate point. This thinking, which could probably be best described as the Glenn Reynolds school of foreign policy is, aside from being evil, fucking stupid.
All signs point to "pretty hideous human being, one which all good people should shun."
I think it [the invasion of Iraq] was unquestionably worth doing, Charlie.
...
We needed to go over there, basically, um, and um, uh, take out a very big state right in the heart of that world and burst that bubble, and there was only one way to do it.
...
What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, um and basically saying, "Which part of this sentence don't you understand?"
You don't think, you know, we care about our open society, you think this bubble fantasy, we're just gonna to let it grow?
Well, Suck. On. This.
Okay.
That Charlie was what this war was about. We could've hit Saudi Arabia, it was part of that bubble. We coulda hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could.
I’ll just come out and say it: the netroots' attitude toward professionals isn’t that different from the neocons', both being convinced that the very concept of a foreign-policy clerisy is unjustified, anti-democratic and pernicious, and that the remedy is much tighter and more direct control by the principals over their supposed professional agents.
There is a bunch of stuff here. Obviously, if the necons were so absurdly wrong one would've imagined that those in the "clerisy" would have taken a strong public stand against them. What we saw and still see, of course, are Father O'Hanlon and Pope Pollack, clerics in good standing, still carrying water for them.
But, more to the point, yes "a foreign-policy clerisy is unjustified, anti-democratic, and pernicious." Does this point even need to be argued? There isn't actually an "economic policy clerisy" or an "environmental policy clerisy" or a "housing policy clerisy." Instead we recognize that, expertise aside, there are people with competing agendas on all of these topics. Some are more honest "experts" than others, but even if we all have the same facts at our disposal we can come to widely different conclusions about what policies should be implemented. This is because we disagree about stuff.
The "foreign policy clerisy" apparently exists to close off public scrutiny of or wider debate about America's appropriate role in the world, to limit the range of options which are "on or off the table" and which are open to public debate or discussion. They exist to monopolize debate and have veto status over club members. Members of the community are clearly chosen for the ability to perpetuate this agenda, rather than for their expertise. Max Boot? Peter Beinart? Pollack? O'Hanlon? Can anybody in this gang tie their shoes?
With people like John McCain, Michael O’Hanlon, and Ken Pollack now claiming to be war “critics,” that term is fast becoming a description for people who support the war but aren’t George Bush.
It's always been this way. Even before the war, "war critics" were almost entirely limited to those who criticized the timing, or the degree to which the UN or international community generally was on board. That was the respectable position. Just saying "stop!" was not.
Until Murtha, in late 2005, there wasn't really anyone "respectable" saying "get out." And, IIRC, it wasn't until late in the 2006 campaign that this notion really had any traction with most politicians.
Our elites - press, politicians, the very serious "foreign policy community," etc - failed us and failed us miserable.
Thanks, Oh Wise Old Men of Washington
Posted by Atrios
20 months or so after Iraq Study Group Day, there will be as many troops in Iraq as there were when the report was released.
General Odierno said the five additional brigades added this year under the president’s troop increase were likely to be withdrawn on a timeline parallel to their arrival in Iraq. Under this timeline, which is not yet the official plan, the troop increase would end by April with the five brigades leaving Iraq one each month, with American force levels returning to the troop levels existing before the increase by next August, he said.
Central to the internal debate on a “postsurge” strategy is the extent to which American troops would be able to ask Iraqi forces to take the lead on security missions in critical sections of the country, particularly in Baghdad. Many Democrats in Congress, and even some Republicans, have demanded that Americans hand over more security missions to the Iraqis.
Although no decision has been made about the full extent of the American combat mission next year, administration officials and military officers say the troops in Iraq would shift priorities to training and supporting Iraq forces. They said the large contingent of Special Operations forces now in Iraq would continue missions to capture and kill terrorist and insurgent leaders, and to disrupt their networks.
While Bush has gotten away with many hideous rhetorical games (lies), one of the worst was when he was claiming that troop deployments were going to have to be extended to 15 months because Democrats failed to provide him funding 5 minutes after he asked for it and not simply because it was necessary to maintain the "surge." It was a lie, of course, and one which didn't even make any sense, and the only reason we found that out was because someone in the Pentagon thought it was a wee bit much to stomach.
Bob Kerrey has a reputation for being smart and serious in Washington, which of course means he's a complete wanker who is as dumb as a stone. Want proof? Just read this interview with that pit bull Bill Moyers.
Eritrea is one of the poorest, most war-torn countries in the world. I call the embassy to ask how it intends to show its support of the US and coalition of the willing, of which it is a member? There is a long, stunned pause before the spokeswoman says: "Can you call back tomorrow morning?"
"I was at ground zero as often, if not more, than most of the workers ... I was there working with them. I was exposed to exactly the same things they were exposed to. So in that sense, I'm one of them.
Rudy Giuliani's experience on Sept. 11 and at ground zero propelled him into presidential politics, yet by his own admission, it may also weaken his health - a key issue for any candidate seeking the White House.
Just last week, Giuliani was criticized by some firefighter unions for suggesting he was at ground zero as much, if not more, than many rescue workers and exposed to the same health risks. He quickly backed off that statement, saying he misspoke.
"I empathize with them, because I feel like I have that same risk," said Giuliani, who was at the World Trade Center almost immediately on Sept. 11, 2001, and was onsite many times a day after that.
That assertion - made repeatedly by the former mayor over the years - could pose a different challenge in his quest for the White House, by suggesting he may not stay healthy through a presidential term that would begin in 2009.
Giuliani, a 63-year-old cancer survivor, clearly wonders about his long-term health and that of his close aides who worked with him on Sept. 11, 2001 and after.
I actually have no idea if a rate cut is a good idea, that's above my my grade, but Helicopter Ben just cut the discount rate to 5.75. The discount rate is the rate at which the Fed is willing to make overnight loans to member banks. The more widely discussed federal funds rate is an announced target for the rate at which banks will lend to each other through their Fed accounts.
Agreed, though I don't actually mind the order of the primaries so much as I mind the way reporters tend to cover these places. They sort of do this weird "I'm a better anthropologist than the candidates are" fake schtick where they marvel at the ways of Real Americans in their native habitats, sneer at the candidates for failing to be one of the people, and then laugh at the rubes later in the hotel bar.
Anxious customers jammed the phone lines and website of Countrywide Bank and crowded its branch offices to pull out their savings because of concerns about the financial problems of the mortgage lender that owns the bank.
Countrywide Financial Corp., the biggest home-loan company in the nation, sought Thursday to assure depositors and the financial industry that both it and its bank were fiscally stable. And federal regulators said they weren't alarmed by the volume of withdrawals from the bank.
The mortgage lender said it would further tighten its loan standards and make fewer large mortgages. Those moves could make it harder to get a home loan and further depress the housing market in California and other states.
The rush to withdraw money -- by depositors that included a former Los Angeles Kings star hockey player and an executive of a rival home-loan company -- came a day after fears arose that Countrywide Financial could file for bankruptcy protection because of a worsening credit crunch stemming from the sub-prime mortgage meltdown.
Presidential contender John McCain said Saturday there aren't any good options if the buildup of U.S. troops doesn't stabilize Iraq.
The Arizona senator said during a campaign stop in Iowa that he'd be hard pressed to find an option that the public would support if the troop increase fails.
"I don't know what the other options are because if we fail here I think it's going to be very difficult to maintain the support of the American people," he said. "And when the American people don't support a war ... then we aren't able to maintain a foreign endeavor."
.jpg)
